The big picture of the practice that's being presented is the practice of the Buddhist samadhis and the non-Buddhist samadhis, or I should say Buddhist samadhis which are not particularly Buddhist. Many, I think, many of us are, during this session and other times, are just practicing regular samadhi practice, which is not particularly Buddhist, which we call samadhi number two lately, simply developing concentration. And then during this practice period and during this session, I'm bringing out how to develop and realize the Buddhist samadhis. And what makes a samadhi Buddhist is that it's not just concentration, but it's concentration illuminated by wisdom, and in particular

[01:06]

wisdom which sees the truths that are taught by the Buddha. There could be other kinds of wisdom, too, that would illuminate some other kinds of samadhis. But in particular, in the presentation I was giving you of Samadhi 3 and 4, those are the samadhis which are illuminated by wisdom which sees various kinds of truths taught in the Buddhist tradition. And then to this end of learning how to develop these liberating samadhis of the Buddhist tradition, I've been bringing up the traditional presentation of how to develop wisdom by using these three kinds of wisdom. And then in addition, in the traditional presentation, the three kinds of wisdom study the various teachings about what the truths are and other things too.

[02:18]

I also thought I might mention that just as all states of mind All states of consciousness have this quality of samadhi. Also, all states of mind have the quality of intelligence or the mental factor of intelligence. And all states of mind have the mental factor of mindfulness. But just as even though all states of mind have the quality of or the nature of samadhi as accompanying them, and that that samadhi can be developed and the mind can become absorbed in this samadhi quality. Similarly, the mind can develop and become absorbed in the intellect.

[03:27]

And the intellect, as it's developed more and more, becomes a wisdom. Wisdom is developing the discriminating powers of the mind to the point where they actually can see reality, where they can discriminate exactly the way things are. So I ran into a different rendition of the so-called four seals of all Buddhist teaching, of all authentically Buddhist teaching.

[04:28]

Another way that I heard it put was, no substance, that means, you know, no self, no duration, In other words, impermanence. No bliss except nirvana. So no bliss except nirvana. We previously said that all contaminated phenomena are misery. And nirvana is peace. So... By saying no bliss but nirvana, you're saying that except for in the state of liberation, which purifies these contaminations, there's no bliss. We discussed to some extent the two truths as they were presented by the vibes.

[05:45]

And I just wanted to mention that another important area to look at in their presentation is the consciousnesses, their teachings on the consciousness which know these these objects, these truths. But I'm going to postpone that for the sake of going on to the next school. But before going on to the next school, I wanted to review a little bit the presentation of the Vaibhashika school. So again, they present the Four Noble Truths and the two truths of conventional and ultimate reality. And after presenting the truths,

[06:54]

Another question in the Abhidharma Kosha is, how are these truths seen? And the answer is, which I already read, was, firm in cultivation, endowed with hearing and reflection, she will be able to give herself up to samadhi. So those are the three wisdoms. So the three wisdoms are the way that we are able to see the truths. And then it says, whoever desires to see the truth should first of all keep the precepts. I saw they say that at the beginning. Then he reads the teachings upon which the seeing the truth depends or hears their meaning. Based on having heard, she correctly reflects and ponders and analyzes.

[08:11]

Having reflected, she gives herself up to the cultivation of samadhi. With the wisdom arisen from teaching, for its support there arises a wisdom arisen from reflection. With this wisdom arisen from reflection or critical analysis, for its support there arises a wisdom arisen from meditation." So again, one way to hear this is, according to this school, this early teaching, which is trying to systematize Buddha's teaching on wisdom. that the first kind of wisdom is based on hearing and studying, the second kind of wisdom based on pondering, continuous further study inwardly, analyzing, criticizing the teaching, understanding it more deeply.

[09:16]

And these first two levels of activity are discursive thought, conceptual thought, And then this understanding as a base, one enters into samadhi. And in samadhi, one uses the results of this discursive conceptual study as a basis for a non-conceptual direct awareness of the truth. I don't know, it doesn't exactly say that there, but I'm telling you that it's in there, in this presentation. And then also in this presentation it says some more about the nature of these three kinds of wisdom. And then it goes into actually a discussion of the precepts in the sense that it talks about how the yogi who's going to now proceed on this path of wisdom needs to be kind of like eat and drink moderately, cast aside all kinds of busyness,

[10:25]

Don't be worried about how fancy your robes are or how nice a seat you have or whether you have a good view. In other words, be content with simple things and then you'll be ready to practice. And then they go into practicing samadhi. And then there's a section in here on on meditation on breath, and then there's a section in here on the six aspects of mindfulness of breathing. And then it says, we have spoken of the two teachings, two teachings on samadhi, having attained samadhi, by these two portals, now with a view of realizing vipassana, insight. And then here comes a verse, having realized calm, he will cultivate the foundations of mindfulness.

[11:34]

So then they go into cultivating the foundations of mindfulness. which are mindfulness of body, mindfulness of feelings, mindfulness of consciousness, and mindfulness of Dharma. And mindfulness of Dharma includes studying, for example, the teaching of the five aggregates, the teaching of the twelve sense doors, the doors of sensory arisal, the eighteen realms of sensory experience, the four noble truths, the two truths, the hindrances to meditation. All these teachings then come into the third level, So here in this text, first you calm down, then you practice foundation of mindfulness. It's not always practiced that way. As you may know, some people go to, for example, Vipassana centers and go right into practicing mindfulness practice without first doing the calming practices.

[12:39]

But in this text, first of all, it says, first of all, you learn the truths. Then you calm down. Then you practice mindfulness. And then you go through these levels of mindfulness and then you start looking at the teachings which you already studied. Now it's also okay To not do the calming practice first and go right into the mindfulness. And when you get to the fourth kind of mindfulness, then start studying Buddhism and learn about the five aggregates and so on. So it doesn't have to be that way. But here, when they get to the four foundations of mindfulness and you come to the fourth type, which is the most subtle, you're already calm, you've already learned the teaching, it's already in your system, and then you can go to work. But I just wanted to mention here also for, I think it'll come up today, is that as soon as they, right after they introduce the foundations of mindfulness, before they even say what they are, he said, having realized stillness, having realized calm, he will cultivate the foundation of mindfulness.

[13:54]

And it says, how is this? And it says, by considering the two-fold characteristics of body, sensation, mind, and dharmas. So they told you the different areas and then they tell you that you're going to consider the two-fold characteristics of these four categories, these four foundations of mindfulness. So this is in the Vibhashika system that Vasubandha is presenting and the two-fold characteristics of body, and so on. One characteristic is called the own characteristics or the specific characteristics. Svalakshana. Sva means like own. The own marks or the own characteristics of, for example, the body and feelings and so on.

[15:00]

And then the other kind of characteristics are called the general characteristics or common characteristics of body, of bodies, of feelings, of consciousness. The specific characteristics of the body are like the characteristics of, basically, the characteristics of, for example, your body or somebody else's body. The specific characteristics of that feeling are exactly the specifics of the feeling. The specific characteristics of consciousness are the specific, detailed, rich and varied qualities of consciousness, and so on, for all the teachings. The general characteristics of these four foundations of mindfulness, the general characteristics are, can you guess? Right? Right, that's one of them.

[16:04]

But now that's a hint, right? What's the other? So one's impermanence, yes? Huh? No self, yeah? What? Miserable, yeah? What else? Well, no, not entropy-dependent. That screws up the misery part. Well, it says four here because they elaborate that there's selflessness and emptiness, śūnyā and anātman. So these are the general characteristics of the phenomena that you look at, general characteristics of body and so on. These are the general characteristics. So the specific characteristics could also be called the unique characteristics.

[17:07]

So then it goes on, and basically the course now is the course in deepening these mindfulness practices. And it also asks, how come you... And then it says, what are the foundations of mindfulness? And then they say... Yeah, what is the foundation of mindfulness? And it says... There's three kinds of foundation of mindfulness. One is foundation of mindfulness itself. Another is foundation of mindfulness through connection. And the other is foundation of mindfulness by being an object. Okay? Foundation of mindfulness itself is what? It's wisdom. But then somebody says, well, it isn't really wisdom, is it? I say, well, it sort of is, because it's like, then the Vibhashikas say, it's like, they use the example, it's like an axe.

[18:15]

It actually says a wedge here, but it's like an axe handle relative to an axe blade and wood. So the actual blade of the axe handle is wisdom. And the wood is like delusions or defilements, but the handle that you have on the thing that puts the power into the blade, that's the mindfulness. So mindfulness applies the wisdom to the phenomena. So in that way, the foundations of mindfulness are a way to apply wisdom to phenomena. So then this course in foundation mindfulness goes on here and gets basically more and more developed until there is seeing the truths directly. So it's chapter 6 in here if you want to study that.

[19:18]

And I brought those things up because that will prepare you for the next school, I think. So please excuse me for not doing sort of the other half of the story of the Vaisakha presentation of consciousnesses. I'd like to go on now to the next goal, which is called Satrantika. Satra means of the sutras, and a Satrantika then is a person following the sutras. And part of the reason why they give them this name is because they put more emphasis, they rely more on the sutras than on the Abhidharma.

[20:34]

The Satrantakas tend to... A lot of the Satrantakas say that they don't really think that the systematic presentation of Buddha's teaching on wisdom, that the systematic version of Buddha's critique of naive realism. They don't think that the way that Abhidharma put it is really the way, really Buddha's words. They think it's the work of the Buddha's scholastic disciples. So they want to go back and use the sutras as the source. Two schools, two sub-schools of the Satrantika. One is those following the scriptures. They both follow the scriptures, but one more follows the scriptures than the other because the other also follows reasoning. So those two schools, those who follow reasoning and those who follow scriptures. Vasubandhu in this Abhidharma Kosha

[21:42]

is kind of an example of following the scriptures type of Satrantika. So he's an expert on Vibhashika, presents it, and then he comes in and presents the Satrantika position of following the scriptures. And then the other version of the Satrantika is represented by Dignaga and his disciple Dharmakirti. they represent the Satrantika school of followings, reasoning. Now, the way that the Satrantika school, following the scriptures, understands the two truths is basically the same as the way it's presented in the Abhidharma Kosha. So, after Vasubandha doesn't criticize the presentation which you've already heard of the two truths. And again, the two truths, the definition of the two truths in the Vibhashika system is that a conventional truth is something which, if broken up physically or mentally, is some object

[23:02]

or some phenomena which have broken up physically or mentally, the consciousness which knew it or the consciousness which apprehended it ceases. And then I give the example of like a jug or water. And the reason why they gave those two examples is because there's two types in that system, two types of conventional truths. One is a shape and the other is a collection. So a jug is like a shape. So if you physically destroy the shape or mentally destroy the shape, the consciousness apprehending that phenomena ceases. Water, however, is more of a collection. So if you break the collection up in parts, collections of water into parts, you still have the water. So you have to actually analyze the water itself in order to realize that it's a conventional truth.

[24:11]

Ultimate truths are those which are things which, if you break them up physically or mentally, the consciousness which knew them, consciousness can still know them after they're changed. And you might say then, it's a consciousness which can deal with impermanence. And, or the ultimate truths, although the Vabhashikas don't put it that way, ultimate truths are truths which aren't disturbed by impermanence. Even though the conventional truth seems to be impermanent and the ultimate truth seems to be permanent. So ultimate truth that's permanent is not disturbed by impermanence. is not presenting itself as permanent. So the conventional truth presents itself as permanent and can't deal with impermanence.

[25:15]

The ultimate truth presents itself as being able to deal with impermanence, so as permanent. And the consciousness which knows it is not disturbed by the impermanence. Okay, now the Satrantika, so the Satrantika presentation of the two truths in the sutra following side, we already did, basically. You have that principle. And another characteristic of the Vibhashika system is that with 18 schools, it's actually hard to get them to agree about which of the innumerable phenomena there are in the world, which are the conventional and which are the ultimate truths. So there seems to be some agreement in the school. It looks like they agree space is an ultimate truth for them. And the analytic cessation is an ultimate truth for them.

[26:25]

By Bhashyaka? Yeah. Okay. I was saying that for the Vibhashyas it's not clear what they actually think are the ultimate and conventional truths, but it looks like they think those things I just mentioned are ultimates, but also it looks like they think the skandhas are ultimates. So in other words, if the meditator is looking at skandhas, you're looking at ultimate truths. So if you're looking at skandhas and a pot's broken, the consciousness which was looking at the pot but seeing the skandhas, that consciousness is not disturbed. But if you're looking at a pot and you don't see the skandhas, then when the pot breaks, the consciousness ceases.

[27:33]

So if you look at a person and you see the skandhas, then you don't see the self of the person. You don't find the self of the person. If you look at a pot and see the skandhas, you don't see the self of the pot. So if the pot's broken, It doesn't matter to you because you weren't seeing the pot in the first place because the pot is not one of the skandhas. The forms and the listing of the forms in the skandhas, pot isn't on the list. There's colors, there's smells, there's tastes, there's touches, and there's sounds, but there's not pots. So if a pot presents itself and you see it in terms of the aggregates, if the pot gets broken, you still see it. You're still seeing aggregates. You're still seeing colors or you're still hearing sounds or you're still hearing silence.

[28:38]

So for the Vibhasika system, the five aggregates are ultimates. And if you look at the ultimates, and that will free you from naive realism, that will free you from making things too real, particularly making people too real. And also the definition of a Vibhasika is a person who, do you remember? person who holds teachings which are concerned with personal liberation. And third, where are the third points? Second and third points, remember? What? Denies or does not accept self-consciousness and... What?

[29:43]

External objects really exist. Yeah, that's the Vibhashika. And again, self-consciousness means being able to be aware of the consciousness at the same time you're aware of the object. In the Satyantika system, they also hold these teachings which are held to be true in the context of personal liberation, and they accept both the reality of external objects and self-consciousness. And there's one revision in that, is that actually it's the Vibhashikas, it's the Satrantikas, followers of the scriptures, who follow reasoning that had that position. The ones who follow the scriptures, like Vasubandhu, they also do not accept self-consciousness.

[30:48]

And so for years, studying the Abhidharma Kosha, I thought that the Satrantikas and the Vibhashikas accepted that consciousness only knew the objects and did not know the subject. Because that's what the Abhidharma Kosha says. Consciousness can know all dharmas. It can know the defiled dharmas, the contaminated dharmas, which is all the dharmas except for two types of cessation in space. You can know all that, but there's one thing consciousness can't know, and that's itself. But this next school says, no, in addition to that, there can be consciousness being aware of consciousness in the the following reasoning section of the Satrantikas.

[31:51]

So that's the definition of a Satrantika. They assert the true existence of both external objects and self-consciousness if they're the reasoning following school. And that's the one I'm going to talk about because the sutra following school sees the two truths the same way as the Vibhashikas, which you've already learned. What's your sub-school of the Sarvastivadana? Sarvastivadana is a sub-school of the, and sometimes it's considered equivalent, but really it's a sub-school of the Vibhashikas. They say all things, all things, that means something that performs a function, they all exist, and even they exist in three times. So they say that even past... past taths exist and future taths exist. So they're really into all... So there's a function of a past tath and a function of a future tath and a function of a present tath.

[33:02]

That's the Sravastavadana. It's a Vibhashika type. Okay, now... What about objects? What kind of objects does this system present? Well, all objects can be divided into two truths. They can be divided into specifically characterized phenomena and generally characterized phenomena, which I just told you about. When you start practicing mindfulness, with the body or feelings or whatever, you're supposed to learn how to see the specific characteristics and the general characteristics. Okay? In other words, how to see the specific characteristics of the body and the general characteristics

[34:05]

Okay? So here all phenomena will be divided, can be divided into those two specifically characterized phenomena and generally characterized phenomena. They can also be broken into negative phenomena and positive phenomena, manifest phenomena, hidden phenomena, into three times and into single and different phenomena. Here comes the fun part, or this is one of the fun parts. Now what should I do first here?

[35:10]

which is a more sensible way to do this, whether I present the different types of consciousness or the different objects. I think I'll do the consciousnesses first.

[36:41]

Now. So this system teaches basically two types of consciousness, and the first kind of consciousness is called conceptual consciousness, and the next kind is called perceptual consciousness. Or you could say conceptual cognition and the other one would be perceptual cognition. But also you could call one conceptuality and you call the other one direct perception. And one kind of cognition involves conceptuality and the other is non-conceptual.

[37:45]

These are the two types of cognition that the system teaches. And I think I'll just say right off that the objects appearing to conceptual cognition are conventional truths. And the objects appearing to direct perception or non-conceptual cognition are ultimate truths. The objects appearing to conceptual cognition are conventional truths. and the objects appearing to direct cognition or direct perception are ultimate truths.

[38:47]

Okay? Now I'm going to go back and give you the definitions of the ultimate truths and the conventional truths in this school. I guess I didn't want to do this because it's such a hard definition. But anyway, the ultimate truth, the definition of ultimate truth is a phenomena which is able to bear logical analysis as an ultimate truth from the point of view of whether it has its own mode of existence without depending on imputation. by thought or terminology for its existence. One of the other names for this school is the Darshtantika school.

[39:48]

And Darshtantika means exemplifiers because they give examples. So one of the ways to make this clear to you is to give you some examples. And I don't know if it's good to tell people that you're about to tell them something that's surprising or let them experience it themselves. But let's just say I didn't tell you this was surprising. So examples of ultimate truths in this system are specifically characterized phenomena. Remember before we were talking about specifically characterized and generally characterized? So, The ultimate truths are specifically characterized rather than generally characterized. Now do you remember what kind of things were generally characterized before? That's the character, impermanence. But what kind of things are generally characterized? Compounded things. So these things, I'm not saying they're not compounded, not saying that.

[40:55]

But I'm just saying in a previous system, uncompounded things, that the compounded things were the ones that were generally characterized by impermanence, no self, and if they were contaminated, misery. In this case, the first example of an ultimate truth is a specifically characterized phenomenon. Another example is a functioning thing. Another example is... That's not an example. Examples, sorry, those aren't examples, those are synonyms. Sorry, those are synonyms for ultimate truth. A specifically characterized phenomena, a functioning thing, an impermanent thing, a product, and a truly existent phenomena.

[42:01]

So in this system, impermanent things are the ultimate truths. Ultimate truths are impermanent things. Okay? Is that surprising? You ain't, hmm? Yeah, I said impermanent. So an impermanent thing in this system, an impermanent thing, is an ultimate truth. Because the truth is that it's impermanent. Pardon? The impermanent… The truth is not that, that it's impermanent. An impermanent thing is an ultimate truth. When you're looking at an impermanent thing, you're looking at an ultimate truth. So this is a big one, okay? When you're looking at an impermanent thing, you're looking at an ultimate truth. But do you remember I just mentioned the kind of cognition which sees ultimate truths?

[43:03]

What kind is that? Non-conceptual, direct cognitions see ultimate truths. So when I say when you look at or when you see an impermanent thing, you're looking at an ultimate truth in this system? I don't mean you're regular looking at things. I mean a direct, non-conceptual cognition of an impermanent thing. At that time you're looking at an ultimate truth in the system. Now this particular point, I don't know if I should open this one up right now. I think maybe, just don't let me not go back to this, okay? This is a big one. Okay? So remind me to come back to this in a little while, would you? Like not more than 10 minutes. And no questions, otherwise it'll have to be an hour. Okay? But did you get that? A synonym for an ultimate truth in this system is an impermanent thing.

[44:10]

And so we already said that everything, all the ultimate truths, they come to us through direct perceptions. So this would be a direct perception of an impermanent thing would be actually seeing an ultimate truth. It's not that something is impermanent. It's the actual impermanent thing that's the ultimate truth. So examples of ultimate truths in this system are the kinds of things that you can buy at that, what's that, is it a Dutch furniture company in East Bay? Ikea? And the kinds of things you can buy at Ikea. Those are ultimate truths. So you want to just go over there and walk in there and there's the ultimate truths that are in that room. Pardon?

[45:14]

I've never been here. It's got a big parking lot. It's right off the freeway. Anyway, chairs, tables, houses, persons Pets, pots, jugs, small particles. These are ultimate truths. They're also impermanent, aren't they? Impermanent things, aren't they? They're also, what else are they? They're products. They're specifically characterized phenomena. Now, you can deal with them as generally characterized phenomena also, but under this heading of seeing them as looking at a pot or a chair or a person in terms of seeing ultimate truth, you don't look at them and you're not seeing their general characteristics, you're seeing their specific characteristics.

[46:24]

Now conventional truth, in this situation, is a phenomena, this is easier, is a phenomena which only exists through being imputed by thought or terminology. Now in the previous definition, I just gave you what it says in the text, that it's a phenomena that exists in its own mode of existence without depending on imputation, but I think it should say not depending entirely on imputation, because it does depend on imputation somewhat. Whereas a conventional phenomenon depends, that's what the conventional things are. synonyms for conventional truth would be, do you remember the synonyms for the ultimate truth? What would the synonyms for conventional things be? What's a big one? Permanent. Permanent things are conventional truth.

[47:29]

A permanent phenomena is a conventional truth. Like what? Well, just a second. a non-product, a false existence, a generally characterized phenomena, a non-functioning phenomena. These are synonyms for... Oh, and also, a phenomena appearing to what kind of consciousness? Conceptual. that's not exactly a synonym, but it's sort of like a synonym because something that... an object appearing to a conceptual consciousness is a conventional truth. And now you say, like what? Okay? Like what is the generic image of the things I just mentioned as ultimate truths

[48:41]

Those are conventionalities or conventional truths. Italian, yeah. So if you go over to IKEA and you walk in, and you look at those things with your conceptual consciousness, what you see in your conceptual consciousness actually is a generic version of the furniture that's specifically in the room, which you don't see. what you see is your conceptual rendition of it. If you saw directly the specific furniture, you would just, you know, I don't know what would happen to you. You might have to sit down in one of the chairs to enjoy a direct perception. You probably wouldn't be able to buy anything. That's why they want to work the concepts over there on you. So if you're in the same room that I told you to go to for the ultimate truths, in the same room looking at the same stuff, but what you're looking at is the generic image of everything you're looking at.

[50:00]

That's what's actually appearing to your consciousness. So the generic image of tables, people, even individual people, you have a generic Reed and a generic Carolyn and a generic Cedar and a generic Holly and generic Susan and so on. Not the specific and the generic people that they're like impermanent and stuff like that, right? The generic things have these qualities. These specific things have the specific qualities, like they're specifically what they are. Those are the ultimate truths, and they're impermanent. But the generic things, as you'll see more later on, they're permanent. The generic things are permanent. There's no way for them to change, and they have no function. They don't function. Now they are, you could say, well, don't they function as sources of misery?

[51:07]

Not if you understand them. They really don't have, they're kind of like, they don't function. And here's another one. This is with a kind of killer. And this isn't the killer. This is easy. Another one, example of a conventional truth is uncompounded space, which is the mere absence of obstructing contact. Now that's a different space from the space in the other system, which was not just the mere absence of obstruction, but it was emphasizing the way space accommodates things. And space is uncompounded in the previous system, but they emphasize the function of it. accommodating things without hindrance. In this case, they're saying that isn't really a function and that is a non-functioning, falsely existing, permanent, conventional truth.

[52:11]

Permanent phenomena, conventional truth. And then the next one is the selflessness or the emptiness of a person's emptiness of being substantially existent is also a conventional truth. In the previous situation, what they wanted you to learn to see was that persons lacked substantial existence. So they wanted you to be able to see the non-existence, the emptiness, of the substantial existence of the person. Now they're saying that this emptiness, that this selflessness, which we need to see actually on the path, that this selflessness is a conventional truth, is a false existence. Wasn't that a little surprising? Once you get used to it, it seems like Buddhism is really alive with activity.

[53:26]

Okay, so now I'd like to say a little bit about the two kinds of consciousness. There's a little bit more about the two kinds of consciousness. Okay. This is helpful, I think. So conceptual consciousness means that it's a cognition of what's going on in our life, but the cognition is mediated by a concept. So it's not direct. What the consciousness actually knows is a conceptual version of whatever's happening. So this system does say there are external objects, see? It's still saying there's something that exists, but it says what you know is a conceptual rendition of it. So you do, it says there are people, and so on.

[54:30]

This system says there are people. The other one says there are people too, but now we're talking about that when we know people, or when we know jugs, or when we know tables, When we go to the furniture store, we look at the furniture, but actually what we see is a concept. What actually appears to the mind is a concept. This is conceptual consciousness, okay? But what appears to the direct perception is the furniture. What were you going to say? The furniture appears to direct precession because direct precession sees ultimate truths, and furniture is ultimate truths with no intervening concept. So we distinguish between also, what do you say, there's two types of objects for both of these types of consciousness.

[55:34]

One type of object is the appearing object, or the object as it appears to the consciousness. And the other kind of object is the object of engagement. It's the way the consciousness actually meets the object. So in conceptual consciousness, the actual engagement with the furniture Okay? It does engage with the furniture. You can go into the furniture store and sure enough there's furniture there and you know it. And you know it because the furniture store has had some impact on you. So you're actually there, your mind is actually like engaging with it. But the conceptual consciousness sees a generic version of everything that the mind is engaged with.

[56:36]

And that's what appears to the consciousness, is the generic version. So there's no specific things, just you're dealing with generic things. And what you're seeing is entirely due to imputation. Yes? Pardon? It means that you're putting a concept of something onto something, and it usually means also that after you put the concept on the thing, you can't see how it was an imputation, and you think that what you put on it is the thing. Okay? However, in this school, even though something is due to imputation entirely, and what you're seeing, in other words, something, what you're seeing is entirely due to imputation, what appears to you is due to imputation.

[57:52]

In conceptual consciousness, what appears to you, what you know, is entirely due to imputation. Okay? And it's a conventional truth, and it falsely exists, Although it falsely exists, it does exist. It does exist. It's a conventional existent and a conventional truth. So an example of something that's not a conventional truth, I was talking to somebody about it, an example of not a conventional truth and not an ultimate truth is, the famous one is like a furry, turtle. Now, some people might all say another example is a horny rabbit, but that's not quite right. It's a rabbit with horns. Because there are, of course, there are lots of horny rabbits.

[58:53]

However, horny rabbits, when they're when they're conventional truths, it's not the actual horny rabbit, because a horny rabbit actually is an ultimate truth. It's the generic image of the horny rabbit that is the conventional truth. But actually a rabbit with horns is not a conventional truth. There's no such thing. It doesn't exist at all. But what does exist, if you think of a rabbit with horns, what does exist is the meaningful image or the meaning image of the rabbit with horns. That exists in the mind. It does exist. And all the things that conceptual consciousness is dealing with are these impermanent, excuse me, permanent things. The image of basically rabbit with horn is permanent. It's not changing. You may have a variety of rabbits with horns, but each one is permanent.

[60:03]

And also that permanent thing is actually characterized by impermanence, because it is characterized by these general characteristics. But to you it seems like a permanent thing, because it doesn't look like that, because I can't change, because it's just totally imagination. And so now maybe I just jump over to the other one, direct perception. In direct perception, the engagement with the object and the way the object appears are the same. So the way the mind actually engages the chair or engages the person is the same as the way it appears to the consciousness.

[61:27]

So it engages the specific chair or the specific person without, in a sense, jazzing them up, at the same time watering them down by making them into a generic image. There's a little imputation, but it's not solely imputed. There's some imputation. But imputation is, that's why, but I, maybe I'm wrong and maybe there's no imputation. But I think there's... Maybe there's no imputation. I'll take it back. Okay. There's no imputation in this school, but it still depends on mind to some extent. Otherwise, it couldn't happen because we're talking about a consciousness. So maybe it's okay to say no imputation. In other words, that there's no conceptual laying over on the object which is being misconstrued with the object. Okay? As a result...

[62:32]

There can be direct awareness of the impermanence of this thing. And again, in this system it's very important to distinguish between gross impermanence and subtle impermanence. Subtle impermanence is a characteristic of these ultimate truths. Subtle phenomena means the way the thing's changing constantly, moment by moment. Gross impermanence means that the thing, like a person, will eventually end or die and be dispersed. The subtle impermanence is the way the person's changing all the time. But the subtle impermanence doesn't appear to conceptual consciousness. So if you could look at somebody and see how they were changing every moment, you'd be seeing them as an ultimate reality, ultimate truth.

[63:40]

You'd be seeing ultimate truth. And that would also be a direct perception. Now, I've just parenthetically, for now, and it can be opened up later, parenthetically mentioned that actually when we look at people all day long, there actually is a direct perception of them, and there actually is the impermanence, the subtle impermanence of them is being presented to the consciousness all day long. that we're engaging with the subtle impermanence, with this rapidly changing quality of every person we meet. We're meeting the ultimate truth at the same time. And the way it's presented to our consciousness is just like we're engaged. Just as we engage people's momentary subtle impermanence, we also know that. But very few people are aware of that. In other words, very few people are aware of the direct perception that's going on. They don't realize it.

[64:43]

We don't realize it. And then the next part is very important, too. And this relates to the three wisdoms. And this relates to studying various schools. And that is that the direct perception of the subtle impermanence of ultimate truths, which are ordinary things, it may be necessary — there's some diverse opinion on this, but many people understand that it may be necessary, or is necessary, that we first have a conceptual understanding and of the subtle impermanence before we can directly realize the subtle impermanence. So we need to work with conceptual consciousness, working with conventional truths, in order to understand the subtle impermanence of ultimate truths, or the subtle impermanence of all ultimate objects, before we can actually have direct perception of the subtle impermanence

[66:03]

of ultimate truths. Pardon? Just take mushrooms, yeah, right. Just take mushrooms. What? Well, just that The conceptual consciousness is the one that's knowing the conventional truths. Like, for example, these images we have for chairs, these generic images for chairs, we know those. And also, if we hear about the teaching of subtle emptiness, of subtle impermanence, we hear about that in conceptual consciousness. So we have a generic version of subtle impermanence. And then we work with these teachings about subtle impermanence until we have, through conceptual discursive activity and study and examination in the conceptual realm, we have a wisdom which understands through hearing and through critical analysis, using conceptual consciousness and understanding, a wisdom, a kind of wisdom about impermanence.

[67:24]

this subtle impermanence, a wisdom about what an ultimate truth is in this system. We have a wisdom about that, but this wisdom is a conceptual cognition, wisdom. In other words, we're not actually looking at the ultimate truth. We're not actually looking at the subtle impermanence. because we're in conceptual consciousness. But we need to do that work. That's why it's proposed that we need to do the first two kinds of wisdom work before we can have the direct cognition, the direct perception of these truths. And so there's some debate about that. Some people maybe think, well, no, you can just be walking along the street and have a direct So is it really that when you take mushrooms that you're having a direct perception?

[68:24]

And maybe it is. Maybe the chemistry upchucks the direct perceptions that are going on all day long that we can't see because our conceptual consciousness is so overbearing that it makes it so we don't notice these direct perceptions that are going on. Maybe so. So maybe that's enough. I mean, that gives you a start on this school, I think. So you probably have two or three hours of questions. And it's already, yeah, it's kind of interesting stuff, kind of surprising change in perspective on this. Yes? Is direct perception better than sensory experience? Sensory experiences are direct perceptions, yes. Let's see, what would be the difference?

[69:36]

Again, looking at the four foundations of mindfulness, all right? So when you first start being mindful of the body, okay, there's two kinds of cognitions that you could have of the body, okay? So in this kind of cognition, you have mindfulness and you're paying attention to the body. But what you're mindful of, perhaps, in this situation is of a generic body. Okay? And even if you get into subtleties about the body, still you're having the generic version of whatever you're dealing with. So then in that case, you're meditating on the samanyalakshanas, the general characteristics of the phenomena called body that you're looking at, or the aspect of body that you're looking at. You're practicing mindfulness in a conceptual way. That's part of the deal. It's part of developing wisdom through mindfulness is using the conceptual consciousness. Simultaneously, there is perceptual consciousness going on too, or alternating between it in some way, or simultaneous to perceptual consciousness.

[70:47]

Perceptual consciousness is more subtle, and it's about subtler things, and it's not about the generic version of the subtle things. It's actually seeing the subtlety of impermanence rather than the general characteristic of impermanence. So that would be also characteristic in this school. You would use mindfulness and you would apply it, but you have the additional teaching about these two kinds of consciousness, or this particular take on it, such that whereas previously the jug was said to be a conventional truth, because as you analyze it, If you break it physically, the consciousness ceases. Now we're saying the jug, the same thing, is an ultimate truth. Okay? But it doesn't really necessarily contradict the previous one because when they said before that when the jug is broken, the consciousness ceases, what kind of consciousness was that that ceases?

[71:48]

It was a conceptual consciousness. But they didn't say that. But in fact, now we see, well, maybe that's what it was. Because in this case, too, if you have a conceptual consciousness looking at a jug and you break the jug, the conceptual consciousness will cease. Right? So it's being involved with the object in that way or... Pardon? The conceptual consciousness will continue if you break the thing? No. No. No, it's not that bad. If you go into a furniture store and there's no furniture in it, you won't start seeing furniture. But... But if you break the furniture in either school, okay, you'll see the broken furniture. It's just that if you have a conceptual consciousness in either school, but the first school didn't mention it, if you have a conceptual consciousness of the chair and the chair is broken, okay, that conceptual consciousness won't go on.

[73:04]

You won't continue to imagine the chair. Now, in your head, you might imagine a chair Okay? But there's no chair there. There's no chair existing when you just close your eyes and imagine a chair. But there is the image of the chair. So we use fancy examples like a furry turtle, but you could also just imagine a chair in your mind, and then people say, but there's some chair that corresponds. But actually there's no chair that corresponds to the image you have in your mind of a chair. There's no chair like that. But there is the conventional truth of the image of the chair in your mind. However, if you look at something outside, and in dependence on that, you engage with that, and then you make a generic version of that and know that generic version, then if they break the chair in front of you, you give up that. Usually you would give up that the chair is still there. Some people try, you know. Like little kids try to keep seeing their grandpa after he's dead. But, you know, they do get disturbed, usually.

[74:05]

That's conceptual consciousness. And so this would agree that conceptual consciousness knows conventional truths. Whereas if you knew, if you looked at the jug and saw... See how these schools are related, you see? If you looked at the jug and saw, had a direct perception and saw the impermanence of the jug, okay, and then the jug was broken, this would not be news to you. Does that make sense? If anybody doesn't understand, if you have any doubts, stop right there, because that's kind of, I think, a good point. Yes? Excuse me, could you wait on that question? We're back. Could you wait a second on your question? I'd like to stay with this pot thing, this jug thing.

[75:08]

Okay, a little longer. Can you see that if you look at a jug... and you come up with a generic version of the jug, and then the jug breaks, is broken physically, that you might give up on that generic version of a jug as being what's out there. That the consciousness of it would cease, except if you wanted to play some fancy, you know, be silly. Okay, can you see that? You can still imagine it, but you wouldn't think that there was a jug. If I hold a jug up to you and then put it behind my back, you can still imagine it, but you don't think what you're imagining is the jug. You probably wouldn't. Most people wouldn't think that that was the jug. Right? The jug's behind my back. You're imagining the jug. That's an image in your mind, right? But if I hold the jug up to you and you look at the jug and you engage with that jug and then you have what you think is the jug in your mind, If it's a conceptual consciousness, you're really looking at the concept of this jug.

[76:13]

Now, if I break the jug, you're not going to continue to think that that thing exists, usually. You're going to think that's over. Now I'm looking at these shards. Of course, you're doing a conceptual, generic version of the shards. Okay? But that consciousness ceases. You see, there's a relationship between these two schools is that one's getting a little bit more sophisticated. Do you see the difference? It's really not contradicting. It's just more sophisticated. The previous school, they didn't mention that the consciousness which is apprehending the pot and that ceases when the pot is broken, that that's a conceptual consciousness that ceased. They didn't mention that. Now, the second school, you can see that that's what ceased. See how that's kind of a refinement of the epistemology of the event? But what I was trying to lead up to, which I thought was really important, conceptually, was that if you had a direct perception of the pot, you would be seeing moment by moment its destruction.

[77:28]

because you'd be tuned into the subtle impermanence. So then if a gross impermanence manifested, you wouldn't lose your consciousness because you're not tuned into the grossness of the object. You're not turned into the generic version of it. So the generic version wouldn't be destroyed because you're not even dealing with it. So breaking the pot would fit in with what you're seeing. Now how that would work would be that you would get into the subtle impermanence of the breaking of the pot. Does that make sense? I know that was hard, maybe. And you'd get into subtle impermanence of the broken pot. You'd even see that the broken pot was impermanent. The shards were impermanent. You'd watch the shards changing moment by moment. Isn't that kind of interesting? Like, usually when we look at a pot, we think, okay, I could see how maybe that... But I don't see how the pot's changing every moment. Then you break the pot, you don't expect to see how the broken pot's changing every moment. You know the pot can be broken, but it's hard for you to see how a broken pot could be broken.

[78:32]

But in fact, the broken pot is constantly being broken when it's an ultimate truth. An ultimate truth is a subtle impermanence. So when you're looking at things and seeing their impermanence, then when they're destroyed, you don't lose that consciousness, it doesn't cease. So the criterion of the first example actually applies to the second. doesn't really violate it as far as I would see, so far. Does that make sense? Now, Stephen, do you want to do your thing about America? Well, no, I think that that's a challenge I was thinking about, is the glass, when he says, for me, he's holding the glass, he says, for me, the glass is already broken. There you go. That sounds, that's interesting, huh? The Zen teacher's holding the glass, says, for me, the glass is already broken. Correct. Oh, Theravada, I'm sorry. It sounded kind of like a Chinese name, didn't it?

[79:39]

Yes, it's very different. Yeah. And when you see the subtle impermanence of the pot, and you see the subtle impermanence of the person, then you also see what? What? Well, maybe, but you see the specific characteristics of the pot and the person too. So that goes along with it, that the richness of the particular thing you're looking at is available to you in direct perception. Direct perception is like very rich. It's going on all the time, but we're generally cut off from it because of the dominance of conceptual consciousness. Because conceptual consciousness is like heavy metal versus like organic dyes. You know, it's very subtle, the difference between each thing. And you're into that subtlety of how they change, and you're into the specific characteristics of each thing within this school, within this direct perception as presented by this school.

[80:42]

So it's a wonderful thing that direct perception is a wonderful thing, and it knows ultimate truths, and it knows subtle impermanence, and it knows the richness of life, Seeing the richness of life goes along with seeing the ultimate truth and subtle impermanence. And conceptual consciousness is very vivid and powerful and dominant and kind of like blows perceptual consciousness into obscurity and oblivion for most of the time. But it's also, in some sense, reduces the subtlety and the richness of experience and also presents us with false appearances, false existences. Okay? So there's lots of questions. Yes, Karen? Well, in terms of the direct perception, how specific is it? Is it...

[81:43]

I'm seeing why I'm in color and shape. But then if I go further, I can't really perceive Adam. So if I go further, it seems like, well, then it goes into perception. Yeah, maybe so. But my first response as you were starting to talk was that it's that... Instead of specific, another one is unique. So the unique quality of whatever the thing your mind's engaged with, that is known. That's what's being looked at, is the unique quality. You don't necessarily have to analyze or anything. It's just the unique way that this is... It's not really what the thing is. It's the unique way the thing touches you. It's the way you're actually touched by the thing. without then converting that touch, that specific unique impact, into a concept.

[82:48]

So you don't have to do anything with it. All you have to do is like accept it, basically. It's already there. However, again, the funny thing is, and if it's a truth, If it's a conventional truth that we're looking at now, I mean an ultimate truth, that truth is known to that consciousness, and it's going on all day long, actually. We're taking an ultimate truth all day long, but we don't realize it, both because conceptual consciousness dominates and also because we haven't trained the mind by using conceptual consciousness in some sense to think itself out of being an obstruction. So conceptual consciousness then works on this until it understands, and then conceptual consciousness checks out for a while. Then we go into samadhi, and the fruit of conceptual consciousness, the fruit of discursive thought, appears to us in this space of giving up conceptual thought and giving up discursive thought.

[83:52]

It appears in this realm of direct perception. We're tuning into direct conception, but we need to have educated ourselves so we realize Again, using a drug example, sometimes people take drugs and they say, well, I don't feel anything. Somehow you have to tell them how stoned they are. And then once you tell them, they say, oh, I see. Wow, oh, jeez. You know? Say, did you notice, look over there, does that look the same? Oh my God, you know. So you sort of have to train yourself to what to watch for so that when you're in the realm of direct perception you don't miss it because actually it's going on all day long because direct perception is the kind of perception that arises when a color is presented to the eye and this consciousness arises. So the things that stimulate the birth In other words, functional things that can be the cause of the arising of an I consciousness, because they actually work with the I and the I consciousness, those things, those kinds of things, are ultimate truths in this system.

[85:00]

So actually that kind of thing is going on all day long, but then those direct perceptions are being converted and interpreted and then and finally confused with the generic concept, which turns out often applies quite well, because we've worked this out pretty well. It applies quite well. The color red does apply to the actual physical impact of electromagnetic radiation of a certain type on the eye, which creates this impression There is that going on. So we have it. So we need to train ourselves in these two levels of wisdom, first of all, before we have the third level of wisdom, conjoined with the samadhi of direct perception. And this school is like, in some sense, I think, elucidating the process in a kind of helpful way. It seems like it's not really in contradiction to the previous one, but actually deepening and giving more access to what the previous one was saying, but didn't say quite as well.

[86:06]

So again, obviously there's... I'll stop calling some people that haven't been called on yet. Kathy? ... synonymous. Consciousness, cognition, knowing, awareness, pretty much in English these words are used often as synonyms. Sometimes they even say main mind because the mental factors like samadhi and so on are often sometimes called minds, but really they're They could also be considered concomitants to the main mind, the total cognition. Does that answer your question? Whose definition? The Vibhashikas, yeah. The Vibhashikas, it's theirs. But, you know, they're the earliest ones, so actually their definition holds up pretty well, actually.

[87:12]

It's their understanding of the status... of these dharmas, nobody's going in saying, no, no, we don't have consciousness and samadhi. All the schools say, yes, there's this big consciousness and then there's samadhi and intellect and mindfulness and, you know, what do you call it, volition and contact. They're all pretty much the ingredients of the situation are agreed upon. But the status of all this phenomena is what's being discussed. What's the ultimate truth and what's the conventional truth and what's the relationship between them? This is the debate. But the actual structure of the consciousness and how it works, there's not so much debate. In some cases, a subtlety is being raised to the surface which was there before but not articulated. Does that answer your question?

[88:15]

You look like it wasn't answered. Well, are objects considered external in these schools? Yes. Well, they're not considered external. They're considered external and they're accepted as truly existent in both these schools. However, In the realist school, what is seen is assumed to be the same as what's out there. In which school? In the Vibhashikas. Yeah. You see the jug, okay, and it's assumed that the jug that's out there is the same as the jug you see. What's not the same? The one-pointedness of the... No.

[89:19]

The one-pointedness of mind and object is called samadhi. The object is the object, the subject is the subject, and the one-pointedness of them is samadhi. But that's agreed upon in all the schools too. But some schools say that they're going to say that this external object doesn't truly exist. And the naive realist will say, the way it actually is, is the way it appears. This school would say that the way it actually is and the way it appears to conceptual consciousness, all right, not the same. The way it appears and the way it actually is engaged are not the same. But in direct perception, then the way it appears and the way it's engaged is the same. So it's a little bit, see the difference between the two schools? In all cases, samadhi is the state of affairs.

[90:23]

There's no disagreement there. They all agree that all states of consciousness will be characterized by the subject and object being one point. Yeah, well, it's external but not separate. Or it appears as external. They accept that it appears external, but it's not separate. They don't say it's separate because of samadhi. But they're saying, okay, that in the mind, the mind is characterized by one-pointedness of object known and knower, or knowing. Object known and knowing are one point that's a characteristic of the mind. But they're also saying that there's something out there But in the mind, what you know and what's known, your knowing and what's known are one-pointed.

[91:26]

But they both say that there's something out there that engages with your body, engages with your senses, and gives rise to sense consciousnesses. They both say that. Okay, both these schools are saying, in that sense, they're both realist schools. They're both saying there's something out there separate from the person. But in the mind, Okay? You have the opportunity to not be upset about that by practicing samadhi. Did you hear that? It didn't sink in very deeply. Yes. I just said, you understand in the mind What you're dealing with now is when you know something, that thing you know is in your mind. This is the one-pointedness in your mind.

[92:27]

It's a characteristic of your mind that the object known and the knowing are one-pointed. And that's samadhi. And if you deal with that, accept that and cultivate that, you feel calm. But the school still says that there's something out there It's not just that the mind is coming up with images and knowing them and one-pointed with them. There's actually something out there stimulating the system, the body. But in samadhi or the samadhi quality of mind does not think that there's an external object. It's not thinking that. It is simply the fact of the one-pointedness of mind and object. That's the fact. And when that's appreciated, you're calm. But even though you're calm, you can still go to a school which says that there are external objects. Those external objects then touch the person through the organs.

[93:33]

At the organs, this touching creates a consciousness of that object. But the consciousness of that object is of something in the mind. It's an object in the mind that the mind knows, and they're one-pointed. No. It's not different. It's not different. Same one-pointedness of objects. It's just that in the Yogacara they're saying that there's nothing out there. there's no external object. They seem to be literally saying that there's not an external object. And since you're asking all these questions, I'm going to take revenge by telling you about the next two systems. And that is, simply, in this regard, the Yogacara says, and that's a big point.

[94:38]

So, Catherine? self consciousness that the self consciousness will accept? Yes. Is it a direct cognition, a conceptual cognition? Is it a direct cognition? Well, it's definitely possible to be both because, you know, yeah, it could be both. You could have like a conceptual... I guess almost anything that's a direct cognition, you could like convert it into a conceptual cognition of it. Because once you have a direct cognition, if you had a direct cognition of the juicy, particular, impermanent self-consciousness, okay, you could then have an idea about that, and you could then cognize that concept about this wonderful direct experience you had. So it could be both, but we're actually talking about it actually maybe being something in this school that actually you can directly realize.

[95:49]

this might be handy in certain yogic situations, which we may someday have a chance to talk about. Who's next? Phu and Pan? I'm calling on people who haven't asked questions yet. Yes? Looking at the jug before it's broken? Looking at a jug before it's broken, then I would say, the Sotrantika school would say that looking at a jug before it's broken sounds like conceptual consciousness. Because direct cognition of the jug would see it as broken all the time. What role do concepts have in direct perception? Well, in direct perception you can directly perceive concepts. without any conceptual mediation of the cognition of concept.

[96:55]

That's one role. So concepts can be objects of direct perception. Another role that concepts play in direct perception is that without conceptual training, without using conceptual analysis of various truths and phenomena, of various phenomenal truths, both ultimate and conventional, without using concepts, you won't be able to realize direct cognition. I was talking to somebody like, it's like, you know, kids can do certain things when they learn things, like they learn how to talk or something. Like this grandson of mine now, for a while he was very early, there was this animal that lives up at our house, and when he sees the animal he said, dog, dog, where's the dog, right? Now he goes, dog, dog, dog, nobody told him to say dog at the end, but now he's like got the dog, and then he's heard the G, now he's into the G, so he goes dog, dog.

[98:07]

And pretty soon it'll smooth out, you know. But he's like making this big effort to get the guh at the end there. Now he's doing that, but he can't tell another kid how to do that. He can't teach another kid. The other kid goes doh, and he goes doh guh. Put the g on the end. He can't do that. And they can fall down and do all kinds of other wonderful gymnastics feats in this very beautiful and relaxed way. but they can't teach anybody else to do it. And later they won't be able to teach anybody by memory either because they don't have a conceptual version of that to talk to people with. So conceptual consciousness is the world we're bound in, but it's also the world in which we talk ourselves back into direct perception. So the role of conception is that Buddha comes out in the conceptual world and tells people how to get back to direct perception of ultimate truth. So direct perception applies to the ultimate truths, But perception of conventional truth, Buddha is also working with the conceptual consciousness, which is knowing.

[99:19]

In this school, Buddha is working with conceptual consciousness, which knows conventional truths and is talking to people in conventional truths about conventional and ultimate truths. But the talk about ultimate truths is still now being interpreted in generic versions of the talk about ultimate truth. And the instructions about how to practice yoga in order to realize ultimate truths is still in terms of generic versions or conceptual versions of the instructions. So we need conceptual consciousness in order to understand how to realize non-conceptual direct awareness. And again, in this school, it's not just to have direct awareness because we already have that, but direct awareness just happens to be knowing ultimate truths which are liberating. So when you start watching ultimate truths, you can imagine if you could like meet everybody and actually see the show,

[100:23]

you know, like see the person like constantly changing right before your eyes, you can see how greed, hate, and delusion would not apply, right? To be in that vivid world, you would not like want something or be afraid anymore. And nothing would break for you because things are breaking all the time. You're in the world of impermanence. You're in the world of flow. You're in the world of peace because you see the ultimate truth. So this system, you know, is pretty good in that way. But there's still a little bit of refinement that could be done in the next two. Yes? . the memory of past events, you know, are they different than where I am right now?

[101:26]

And you just disappear all of a sudden. I don't change confidence at all. I just still accept your confidence. So is the concept, is an image of a past thing different from an image of a present thing? Well, in conceptual consciousness, if you have these two concepts, one of something that's present and one of something past, then in conceptual consciousness, the difference between them is another concept. And presented with that information, with those phenomena, those images, you probably would make another image.

[102:33]

And that image would see the difference, but it wouldn't be the real difference. It would be a conceptual version of the difference. Direct perception could also deal with that, but direct perception would see the impermanence of both of those things and how they really are. In a sense, both are just concepts in a situation. And there is a difference between concepts, which conceptual consciousness can tell the difference between concepts. It's doing that very nicely. As a matter of fact, telling the difference between concepts is its main business. But still, it doesn't really see them directly and in all their vividness and impermanence and reality. Pam? It's going to be 12 o'clock, so after Pam, maybe we should stop. Yes? Can one observe conceptual consciousness?

[103:34]

Well, again, this school would say you can be aware of consciousness. But not only aware of consciousness, but aware of consciousness while it's functioning, looking at something other than itself. So consciousness is aware of something, and simultaneously with that, there might be an awareness that the consciousness is knowing some object. In this case, the consciousness is knowing a concept. But you see, that's one of the nice things, one reason why someone might like to have this self-consciousness, because this self-consciousness might itself not be another conceptual consciousness, but just an awareness of the concept of the consciousness which is knowing objects. But there could also be awareness of the consciousness which is directly knowing things too. So this school says, yes, you can have that. The other school says, no, you can't. No, you don't. Pardon? Is the self-awareness conceptual or perceptual?

[104:42]

I'm not sure. Sorry. I can find out someday. Maybe even today. I don't guarantee it though. So is it okay if we stop? Although I see there's lots of interest. Is it okay to stop? Because it's 12 o'clock. All right? Tomorrow what? You have tomorrow? Where is it?

[105:04]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_89.29